I must also confess that I have never seen such things in an Orthodox Church. On the one hand, we do know that these things did happen in the distant past and there have been somewhat satisfactory explanations why they had not continued on for centuries now. On the other hand, we cannot dismiss them just because of the historical record; how can we gainsay the Holy Scriptures, based on after-the-fact reasoning, and who knows what His will and plans are? This could be like the teachings of the Lord in John 6 that were considered "hard" by many of His disciples. I suspect that these events may be considered as a rebuke to some of us, clergy and laity alike, who have not experienced them. If so, it may be time for the Saint Ephraim's prayer.

They have continued to happen through the centuries, up to the present day, in the Optina Elders and St. Cosmas of Aitolia, Elder Ieronymos of Aegina (+1960s), St. John Maximovitch....but always the people given these gifts in recent centuries are monastics.

Or fools for Christ like Crazy John of Greece.

Logged

Quote from: GabrieltheCelt

If you spend long enough on this forum, you'll come away with all sorts of weird, untrue ideas of Orthodox Christianity.

Quote from: orthonorm

I would suggest most persons in general avoid any question beginning with why.

Right, I forgot about them. The point is of course that these gifts are given to people who make a radical commitment to Christ, not people who watch TV, eat at Applebee's, and read mass market paperback novels. People who do the latter can be fine Orthodox Christians, but they are not given prophetic gifts.

People living in the world sometimes experience one-time visions/gifts/experiences, but these are extraordinary and have to be closely scrutinized by one's spiritual father.

I must also confess that I have never seen such things in an Orthodox Church. On the one hand, we do know that these things did happen in the distant past and there have been somewhat satisfactory explanations why they had not continued on for centuries now. On the other hand, we cannot dismiss them just because of the historical record; how can we gainsay the Holy Scriptures, based on after-the-fact reasoning, and who knows what His will and plans are? This could be like the teachings of the Lord in John 6 that were considered "hard" by many of His disciples. I suspect that these events may be considered as a rebuke to some of us, clergy and laity alike, who have not experienced them. If so, it may be time for the Saint Ephraim's prayer.

They have continued to happen through the centuries, up to the present day, in the Optina Elders and St. Cosmas of Aitolia, Elder Ieronymos of Aegina (+1960s), St. John Maximovitch....but always the people given these gifts in recent centuries are monastics.

I don't mean to derail the discussion about +Phillip and Fr. Elias, et al, but I'm wondering how might one recognize someone with prophetic gifts? What might they do, or behave like? What sort of person might they be? How would one *know* they are a "prophet" and that what they do or say is from God and not either themselves or the demons? What sort of life might they lead or have lead?

Just yesterday I came across a very good quote from Met Anthony (Khrapovitsky) of ROCOR in his lectures on the Mystery of Repentance. These words of his on the subject of prelest, or spiritual delusion, are words that are very helpful to keep in mind in the context of the present discussion. This is a condition we should familiarize ourselves with, not so that we can accuse others of it, but in order to ensure that we ourselves are not deceived either by our own experiences or phenomena manifested by others.

Quote

"Weak faith and carelessness are expressions of people’s irreligion, but even a pious person is not protected from spiritual sickness if he does not have a wise guide, either a living person or a spiritual writer. This sickness is called prelest, or spiritual delusion, imagining oneself to be near to God and to the realm of the divine and supernatural. Even zealous ascetics in monasteries are sometimes subject to this delusion, but of course, lay people who are zealous in outward ascetic struggles undergo it much more frequently. Surpassing their acquaintainces in feats of prayer and fasting, they imagine that they are seers of divine visions, or at least of dreams inspired by grace. In all events in their lives they see special, intentional directions from God or their Guardian Angel, and then they start imagining that they are God’s elect, and not infrequently try to foretell the future. The Holy Fathers armed themselves against nothing so fiercely as against this sickness — spiritual delusion.

"Prelest endangers a man’s soul if it lurks in him alone; but it is dangerous and imperilling also for the whole of local church life, if a whole society is seized in its grasp, if it makes its appearance anywhere as a spiritual epidemic and the life of a whole parish or diocese is oriented entirely towards it."

I also recently was reading the life of St. Ambrose of Optina and came across the following story which should also cause us to think very soberly about this subject:

Quote

”At the end of the 1820’s or beginning of the 30’s, [St.] Leonid [of Optina] visited the Sophroniev Hermitage. At that time Hieroschemamonk Theodosius was living there in seclusion (in the orchard). Many people considered him to be a spiritual man and clairvoyant because he had foretold the War of 1812 and several other occurrences. [St.] Leonid found his state dubious. After speaking with the recluse, the Elder asked him how he was able to foretell the future. The recluse replied that the Holy Spirit made the future known to him; and to the Elder’s question about the manner in which He made this known, he explained that the Holy Spirit appeared to him in the form of some type of dove and spoke to him in a human voice. [St.] Leonid, seeing clearly in this the delusion of the enemy, began to warn the recluse that one should not believe this sort of thing. But the recluse was offended and indignantly retorted to the Elder, ‘I thought that you, like the others, wanted to derive profit from me, but you came to teach me!’ [St.] Leonid withdrew and said to the abbot when he was leaving the Monastery: ‘Watch out for your holy recluse; do not let anything happen to him.’ [St.] Leonid had hardly journeyed as far as Orel when he learned that Fr. Theodosius had hanged himself.”

Fr. Theodosius’ arrogant and prideful response to St. Leonid demonstrated his spiritual state, as pride is the chief ingredient of spiritual delusion. This is why Met Anthony (Khrapovitsky) stated in the same article:

Quote

”In order to open the eyes of a person who has fallen or is falling into delusion, you must show him examples of this fatal sickness taken from the above-mentioned books, and also of its invariable sign — disturbance and even irritability in the face of accusations.”

Again, I am not attempting to “diagnose” this layperson who is part of the parish in question, but only to point out the importance of sobriety is such cases, and if a hermit who is living a seemingly holy life can fall into such a demonic state, how much more susceptible to deception are those living in the world who are not under strict obedience to a holy elder! People flocked to Fr. Theodosius from all around because his predictions came true. The fact that his “prophecies” came true deceived many into thinking that he had a “true” gift of prophecy from the Holy Spirit, when in fact it was all a deception from the demons.

As a general rule, it seems that unless a person is virtuous and has conquered the passions, unless a person is exceedingly meek and humble in the face of criticism and rebuke, and unless that person is under strict obedience and careful observation by a patristically-minded and discerning spiritual father, we should in all probability flee from them lest we ourselves fall into deception.

I must also confess that I have never seen such things in an Orthodox Church. On the one hand, we do know that these things did happen in the distant past and there have been somewhat satisfactory explanations why they had not continued on for centuries now. On the other hand, we cannot dismiss them just because of the historical record; how can we gainsay the Holy Scriptures, based on after-the-fact reasoning, and who knows what His will and plans are? This could be like the teachings of the Lord in John 6 that were considered "hard" by many of His disciples. I suspect that these events may be considered as a rebuke to some of us, clergy and laity alike, who have not experienced them. If so, it may be time for the Saint Ephraim's prayer.

They have continued to happen through the centuries, up to the present day, in the Optina Elders and St. Cosmas of Aitolia, Elder Ieronymos of Aegina (+1960s), St. John Maximovitch....but always the people given these gifts in recent centuries are monastics.

I don't mean to derail the discussion about +Phillip and Fr. Elias, et al, but I'm wondering how might one recognize someone with prophetic gifts? What might they do, or behave like? What sort of person might they be? How would one *know* they are a "prophet" and that what they do or say is from God and not either themselves or the demons? What sort of life might they lead or have lead?

I think I'll start a new thread about this in Faith Issues--"Will the real prophet please stand up?"

In transferring Fr. Paul Alberts and releasing Fr. David Moretti from his parish, and the Archdiocese, Metropolitan Philip sent a loud and clear message-and the message has been received: the Antiochian Archdiocese is open to unrepentant convicted criminals who side with Metropolitan Philip, but closed to those who may walk a tight rope between "mainstream" Orthodoxy and "fundamentalism," who find themselves at odds with the ideology of Metropolitan Philip. . . . . . .

In transferring Fr. Paul Alberts and releasing Fr. David Moretti from his parish, and the Archdiocese, Metropolitan Philip sent a loud and clear message-and the message has been received: the Antiochian Archdiocese is open to unrepentant convicted criminals who side with Metropolitan Philip, but closed to those who may walk a tight rope between "mainstream" Orthodoxy and "fundamentalism," who find themselves at odds with the ideology of Metropolitan Philip. . . . . . .

In transferring Fr. Paul Alberts and releasing Fr. David Moretti from his parish, and the Archdiocese, Metropolitan Philip sent a loud and clear message-and the message has been received: the Antiochian Archdiocese is open to unrepentant convicted criminals who side with Metropolitan Philip, but closed to those who may walk a tight rope between "mainstream" Orthodoxy and "fundamentalism," who find themselves at odds with the ideology of Metropolitan Philip. . . . . . .

<speechless>

Likewise. This leaves a bad taste in my mouth as I currently attend an Antiochian Orthodox Church about 30 minutes from my house. I do not have very many choices except if I travel about an hour or so to Nashville which I can ill afford to do because of gas and other economic problems I face. I will continue (for now) to attend my Antiochian Church and I will pray desperately that Metropolitan Philip will see the error of his ways...

Likewise. This leaves a bad taste in my mouth as I currently attend an Antiochian Orthodox Church about 30 minutes from my house. I do not have very many choices except if I travel about an hour or so to Nashville which I can ill afford to do because of gas and other economic problems I face. I will continue (for now) to attend my Antiochian Church and I will pray desperately that Metropolitan Philip will see the error of his ways...

I'm in exactly the same situation, and have the same feelings. Except it's not Nashville that's an hour away . And I do pray daily for the Metropolitan that he will guide our Archdiocese in true godliness and wisdom.

It's ridiculous to make comparisons between wearing a cassock and forging a check. The priest was disobedient to his bishop - period. Whether the priest chose vanilla instead of chocolate is irrelevant, he must obey his bishop. It might seem strange to a generation reared on democracy to have to toe the lie and accept obedience. Read the life of Fr Nicholas Planas. "I observe the new (calendar) but my heart is with old." Also, it is not for us to pass judgment or opine in this matter - which is what I have just done.

It's ridiculous to make comparisons between wearing a cassock and forging a check. The priest was disobedient to his bishop - period. Whether the priest chose vanilla instead of chocolate is irrelevant, he must obey his bishop. It might seem strange to a generation reared on democracy to have to toe the lie and accept obedience. Read the life of Fr Nicholas Planas. "I observe the new (calendar) but my heart is with old." Also, it is not for us to pass judgment or opine in this matter - which is what I have just done.

[devil's advocate]So if a priest's bishop tells him to teach matters heretical the priest must teach those things because his bishop commands him? If a priest's bishop tells him to preach instead from the Koran the priest must obey? For the priest to do otherwise would make him disobedient to his bishop - period.

Now I realize that there is a difference between those things pertaining to spiritual matters and those things pertaining to other matters, but as we see one can be obedient and still wrong. The Nazis and German soldiers of WWII obeyed the orders given to them and they were still held accountable. In the US military today one is held accountable for doing something wrong, even if the soldier was ordered to do so.

I know that there really is no comparison between the atrocious war crimes committed during the second world war and wearing a cassock, but I would not forge a signature on a check even if my bishop told me to. Wrong is wrong is wrong is wrong - period.[/devil's advocate]

Now, I know that Met. Philip is doing what he thinks is best (or at least I hope so), but just because he is a bishop does not mean that he is not accountable to those below him when he does something wrong. In fact if he is doing something wrong we all need to hold him accountable and do what needs to be done to correct the situation. That being said, I will continue to pray for Met. Philip, and I will observe the situation as it unfolds, and if he happens to make a wrong turn and start to lead the Antiochian Church astray through his actions then I (and hopefully others) will confront him and whoever else (in a respectable manner) to set things right.

In transferring Fr. Paul Alberts and releasing Fr. David Moretti from his parish, and the Archdiocese, Metropolitan Philip sent a loud and clear message-and the message has been received: the Antiochian Archdiocese is open to unrepentant convicted criminals who side with Metropolitan Philip, but closed to those who may walk a tight rope between "mainstream" Orthodoxy and "fundamentalism," who find themselves at odds with the ideology of Metropolitan Philip. . . . . . .

The person who wrote this is certainly entitled to their opinion, but it seems unwise to react too strongly to an anonymous internet posting of this nature.

It's ridiculous to make comparisons between wearing a cassock and forging a check. The priest was disobedient to his bishop - period. Whether the priest chose vanilla instead of chocolate is irrelevant, he must obey his bishop. It might seem strange to a generation reared on democracy to have to toe the lie and accept obedience. Read the life of Fr Nicholas Planas. "I observe the new (calendar) but my heart is with old." Also, it is not for us to pass judgment or opine in this matter - which is what I have just done.

[devil's advocate]So if a priest's bishop tells him to teach matters heretical the priest must teach those things because his bishop commands him? If a priest's bishop tells him to preach instead from the Koran the priest must obey? For the priest to do otherwise would make him disobedient to his bishop - period.

Now I realize that there is a difference between those things pertaining to spiritual matters and those things pertaining to other matters, but as we see one can be obedient and still wrong. The Nazis and German soldiers of WWII obeyed the orders given to them and they were still held accountable. In the US military today one is held accountable for doing something wrong, even if the soldier was ordered to do so.

I know that there really is no comparison between the atrocious war crimes committed during the second world war and wearing a cassock, but I would not forge a signature on a check even if my bishop told me to. Wrong is wrong is wrong is wrong - period.[/devil's advocate]

Now, I know that Met. Philip is doing what he thinks is best (or at least I hope so), but just because he is a bishop does not mean that he is not accountable to those below him when he does something wrong. In fact if he is doing something wrong we all need to hold him accountable and do what needs to be done to correct the situation. That being said, I will continue to pray for Met. Philip, and I will observe the situation as it unfolds, and if he happens to make a wrong turn and start to lead the Antiochian Church astray through his actions then I (and hopefully others) will confront him and whoever else (in a respectable manner) to set things right.

Of course, Met. Philip is, eventually accountable to those below him. Not to mention his ultimate accountability to God.

From what I understand and can glean from here and there, I don't believe Met. Philip asked Fr. Elias to do anything heretical, violent, or illegal. Against Fr. Elias' conscience and internal value system, perhaps. Maybe even definitely. But nothing like what you (as devil's advocate) are suggesting.

Just as an aside, doesn't the devil have *enough* advocates, already ?

Fr. Elias helped me get past some personal issues, although I have to admit to having a red flag which prevented subsequent returns to Westminster.

I'm saddened to hear more details about his justified removal (even though we may not like the Metropolitan doing the removing at this particular moment) and I hope that the St. James Mission grows stronger because of this experience.

Let's be fair. The said layman in this case was neither a nun or a monk. I think it's okay for Priests to confide in others - but perhaps confessions are a bit too much? Let's be clear - we're Orthodox Christians, we do not practice the use of "accountability partners." Also, declaring someone as having spiritual gifts doesn't happen without the Bishop. And if the Bishop raises question to this account, then that needs to be considered by both the Priest and the Parish.

While it may or may not excuse how things are being done at the moment in the AOC, and there is enough other baggage for Antiochian faithful to be upset, this particular case may have been justifiable.

« Last Edit: November 18, 2010, 01:16:16 PM by Lichnidos »

Logged

"Men do not differ much about what things they will call evils; they differ enormously about what evils they will call excusable." - G.K. Chesterton

I wonder what it means, then, when he refers to him as "the man who directs my spiritual life".

Logged

Quote

But it had not been in Tess's power - nor is it in anybody's power - to feel the whole truth of golden opinions while it is possible to profit by them. She - and how many more - might have ironically said to God with Saint Augustine, "Thou hast counselled a better course than thou hast permitted."

I wonder what it means, then, when he refers to him as "the man who directs my spiritual life".

{Speculation} It's likely the difference between saying that you are directed in your spiritual life by St. Basil, and you confess to him. You can do the former easily, through reading his writings (especially the monastic rules), emulating his spiritual journey, etc.; the latter is, from the Orthodox POV, impossible. I gain insight and direction from multiple sources (mostly clergy, in my case, but that could easily be because I'm related to a half-dozen priests and have been around clergy my whole life), but I only have 1 spiritual father to whom I go for the sacrament of confession. He may be very well receiving spiritual guidance - verbal, written, or "other" - from the layman without confessing to him. {/ Speculation}

(This is, of course, intended to be a "benefit of the doubt" speculation. I have no idea what's going on with him, his relationship with his bishops or this other person, etc.)

« Last Edit: November 30, 2010, 02:02:26 PM by Fr. George »

Logged

"There is a cult of ignorance in the United States, and there always has been. The strain of anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that “my ignorance is just as good as your knowledge."" Isaac Asimov

Quote:Following the posting of two comments on OCANews.org last week Fr. Elias Yelovich, of the Antiochian St. James Mission in Westminster, MD, was dismissed from his parish and suspended by Metropolitan Philip.

For shame, Met. Philip! For shame.

This dismissed priest was under Bp. Thomas.

I am active online on non-Orthodox forums, and I often get asked to recommend a parish. I will no longer recommend any Antiochian parish to anyone. Period. I'll send them to the Greeks, if necessary (I'm OCA, although used to be AOCA a few years back, and tend to avoid GOA parishes due to the heavy ethnicity and language issues), but absolutely, positively, under ANY circumstances I now REFUSE to send anyone to the Antiochians.

As a friend says, Met. Philip puts the "despota" in "Eis Polla."

Just because a bishop is problematic doesn't mean a parish will be bad. I'd base my recommendations o something besides the personality and actions of his bishop, unless they are likely to intrude on parish life. Metropolitan Phillip has now suspended three priests, out of hundreds. It's very unfortunate (although probably not as cut and dried as the blogs all suggest). But it's not a trend.

In transferring Fr. Paul Alberts and releasing Fr. David Moretti from his parish, and the Archdiocese, Metropolitan Philip sent a loud and clear message-and the message has been received: the Antiochian Archdiocese is open to unrepentant convicted criminals who side with Metropolitan Philip, but closed to those who may walk a tight rope between "mainstream" Orthodoxy and "fundamentalism," who find themselves at odds with the ideology of Metropolitan Philip. . . . . . .